[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170421163126.53xcwde43cs7k6mf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:31:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lauro Ramos Venancio <lvenanci@...hat.com>
Cc: lwang@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/topology: move comment about asymmetric node
setups
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:42PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
> @@ -612,7 +604,16 @@ static void init_overlap_sched_group(struct sched_domain *sd,
>
> sibling = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sd, i);
>
> - /* See the comment near build_group_mask(). */
> + /*
> + * Asymmetric node setups can result in situations where the
> + * domain tree is of unequal depth, make sure to skip domains
> + * that already cover the entire range.
> + *
> + * In that case build_sched_domains() will have terminated the
> + * iteration early and our sibling sd spans will be empty.
> + * Domains should always include the CPU they're built on, so
> + * check that.
> + */
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sibling)))
> continue;
>
FWIW, the topology that spawned all that is:
10,20,20,30
20,10,20,20
20,20,10,20
30,20,20,10
Powered by blists - more mailing lists